Off Topic SARS-CoV-2 Covid-19

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
Status
Not open for further replies.
chillo said:
ok so maybe not every Londoner is a rodney or del boy.
im just basing it by ones ive met through work and on hol and the magnifying glass that is football forums where you really get that "attitude" coming over.

however hard it must be for cases like those highlighted the message must be

STAY AT HOME.
Click to expand...

Those examples are hardly unique to London either.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chillo
dennisboothstash said:
Interesting
Randomised UK trials of hydroxychloroquine

you can sign up if you fit the criteria, and you’re prepared to risk side effects

https://sentry.phc.ox.ac.uk/sentry/principle/live/survey/open?id=screening&sc=JAM

https://sentry.phc.ox.ac.uk/sentry/principle/live/survey/pis
Click to expand...

As I read that, and I am certainly no expert, given you need to be displaying the symptoms of the virus, and be in one of the at risk groups, the side effects seem a relatively low risk.

If nothing else, anyone volunteering would be getting more medical attention than they may otherwise get, and be helping others in the process.

"With any medicine, including ones that are already used within the NHS, there is a risk of side effects. For the treatment we are using in this trial, the common side effects (experienced by less than 10% of people who take the medication) are:

Hydroxychloroquine

 abdominal pain;
 decreased appetite;
 diarrhoea;
 headache;
 nausea;
 skin reactions;
 vomiting."
 
DMD said:
As I read that, and I am certainly no expert, given you need to be displaying the symptoms of the virus, and be in one of the at risk groups, the side effects seem a relatively low risk.

If nothing else, anyone volunteering would be getting more medical attention than they may otherwise get, and be helping others in the process.

"With any medicine, including ones that are already used within the NHS, there is a risk of side effects. For the treatment we are using in this trial, the common side effects (experienced by less than 10% of people who take the medication) are:

Hydroxychloroquine

 abdominal pain;
 decreased appetite;
 diarrhoea;
 headache;
 nausea;
 skin reactions;
 vomiting."
Click to expand...
For what it’s worth, and I’m no expert either I’d tend to agree.
I’ve seen much more critical comments about the drug, but they’ve been from the States where it’s a very political issue (given Trump supporting its use before successful trials)
 
  • Like
Reactions: DMD
Hydroxychloroquine is an immune suppressant as well as an anti malarial, which is why it’s used for diseases like rheumatoid arthritis where the body’s immune system attacks healthy tissue.

the evidence for its use in covid-19 is that very ill patients go to a stage called a cytokine storm where the immune system goes into overdrive and causes problems for vital organs like kidneys, liver, heart. Cytokine storm is what made Spanish Flu so lethal too. So there is tentative evidence that the drug could help quash cytokine storm and let the body heal itself. We won’t know for sure if it works until we get some data from proper clinical trials, and it takes time to gather it and then number crunch the data. (Compare like for like patients - tons of variables like age, weight, smokers, diabetes etc)

it seems to me that there would be very limited benefits for anyone taking it at the moment unless they were very ill and under doctors supervision. Given its known side effects regarding heart arrhythmia, the risk of taking it prophylactically (ie just in case) would out weigh the potential benefit for me. Anyone touting it for everyone, healthy or not, because “what have you got to lose” would and should be prosecuted for promoting unlicensed health advice in normal times.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Edelman, highpeak tiger, John Ex Aberdeen now E.R. and 5 others
TIGERSCAVE said:
I'm sure youre right DMD, never heard of him TBH. Having said that some (not all of the questions) will warrant a response in time..
Click to expand...
He was Labour's equivalent of Dominic Cummings. Yes he might be bitter etc etc. But actually the questions are all very relevant and are the sort of questions that SHOULD be being asked.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Edelman and look_back_in_amber
  • Like
Reactions: look_back_in_amber
  • Like
Reactions: Kempton
Kempton said:
How many Hull people have died? It's just I was told on Thursday that one had and I can't seem to find anything to back that up.
Click to expand...
I hope none at all. What I don't understand is are post mortems carried out on all the people who have sadly passed away recently?
 
tigermaul said:
Is that ready for the autumn for all and sundry - ie mass availability. Or simply ready to start production?
Click to expand...
Good question. In my experience, academics aren't always up to speed on the practicalities of scaling up a lab scale medicine that's been tested on animals and a few humans, to full scale manufacturing and clinical trials and license application. While you can take business risks in doing things in parallel instead of waiting for success in a traditional stage-by-stage process, some things just take time and can't be speeded up. "80% chance of success" does not say ready for all and sundry by the autumn to me.

There is a race to get a vaccine to market as soon as possible. We desperately need one, but we also need it to be safe for as well as for it to work. That is done by clinical trials - and you can't rush these, they take as long as they take. But we need to know if any side-effects are present - if you only test 100 patients, you are not going to pick up side effects that affect 1 in 200 patients. Scale up to 20,000,000 real-life patients with a 1 in 200 side effect and suddenly you have 100,000 people with problems. If the side effect is a bit of a headache for a few hours, then it's not really an issue. But if it's something worse, you could end up with more problems from the vaccine than the disease.

Politicians sticking their oar into this process worries me. Scientists at drug companies and government agencies wrangle over the data for new medicines for months, and the decision to grant a license is always made on the science and on a good balance of benefit to risk. The last thing we need is to rush something out that hasn't been tested enough under pressure from those who don't know any better, only to find that it's doing harm instead.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tigermaul, Hulot, Ric Glasgow and 1 other person
brownbagtiger said:
Good question. In my experience, academics aren't always up to speed on the practicalities of scaling up a lab scale medicine that's been tested on animals and a few humans, to full scale manufacturing and clinical trials and license application. While you can take business risks in doing things in parallel instead of waiting for success in a traditional stage-by-stage process, some things just take time and can't be speeded up. "80% chance of success" does not say ready for all and sundry by the autumn to me.

There is a race to get a vaccine to market as soon as possible. We desperately need one, but we also need it to be safe for as well as for it to work. That is done by clinical trials - and you can't rush these, they take as long as they take. But we need to know if any side-effects are present - if you only test 100 patients, you are not going to pick up side effects that affect 1 in 200 patients. Scale up to 20,000,000 real-life patients with a 1 in 200 side effect and suddenly you have 100,000 people with problems. If the side effect is a bit of a headache for a few hours, then it's not really an issue. But if it's something worse, you could end up with more problems from the vaccine than the disease.

Politicians sticking their oar into this process worries me. Scientists at drug companies and government agencies wrangle over the data for new medicines for months, and the decision to grant a license is always made on the science and on a good balance of benefit to risk. The last thing we need is to rush something out that hasn't been tested enough under pressure from those who don't know any better, only to find that it's doing harm instead.
Click to expand...

Good post that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom
Back